Korea rejects Elon Musk's motion in dispute against Apple

This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.

Make Apfelpatient a preferred source One click – and you'll see us more often on Google

In the ongoing legal dispute between xAI and Apple, the South Korean government has rejected a key request. The request concerned the release of extensive documents related to the Kakao super-app, which xAI intended to use as evidence against Apple. The decision is a setback for Elon Musk's strategy to put international pressure on Apple's App Store rules.

The conflict revolves around whether Apple's App Store guidelines restrict competition and, in particular, disadvantage so-called super apps. Elon Musk sees this as a structural problem that not only affects Apple but also hinders the development of new business models. Since acquiring Twitter, now X, Musk has pursued the goal of transforming the platform into a super app modeled on Asian examples. It is precisely at this point that his plans clash with Apple's rules.

Background to xAI's lawsuit against Apple

The legal proceedings were triggered by a public complaint from Musk on X. He criticized Apple's partnership with OpenAI, arguing that it was hindering the success of the xAI chatbot Grok in the App Store. Shortly thereafter, xAI filed a lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI.

However, the lawsuit argues more broadly. It claims that Apple deliberately restricts super apps to keep users within its own ecosystem and make it more difficult to switch from iPhones to other platforms. The collaboration with OpenAI further amplifies this effect, as competing AI offerings are disadvantaged.

Why Super Apps are in Focus

Super apps are particularly widespread in Asia. They bundle many functions into a single application, including messaging, payments, food delivery, ride-hailing, streaming, and other digital services. This model has so far gained little traction in Western markets.

Musk, however, sees super-apps as the future of digital platforms. Since acquiring Twitter, he has been working to transform X into such an all-in-one app. From xAI's perspective, Apple's App Store rules stand in the way of this model.

International document requirements under the Hague Convention

To substantiate its allegations, xAI invoked the Hague Convention on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. The company sent formal letters to several Asian super-app providers, including Alipay in China and Kakao Corporation in South Korea.

In its letters, xAI stated that Apple's conduct illegally restricts competition through super-apps. It demanded the release of all relevant documents in the possession, control, or access of the respective companies. This explicitly included documents from lawyers, consultants, auditors, and other commissioned third parties. Specifically, xAI demanded, among other things:

Documents on the financial or strategic importance of distributing super apps through various app stores
Documents showing how revenue is generated with the app in the US and worldwide.
Information on the app's ranking in the Apple App Store
Documents on how super apps influence smartphone users' willingness to switch apps
Evidence of planned or already implemented integration of generative AI and the reasons for it
Documentation regarding how Apple's policies, programs, or product changes have affected the distribution or further development of the app.

The term "documents" was defined very broadly. It included emails, presentations, notes, minutes, analyses, studies, datasets, Excel spreadsheets, contracts, product requirements, product designs, and training and onboarding materials. Additionally, all metadata and embedded information were to be disclosed.

Decision of the South Korean government

This week, the National Judicial Administration at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea rejected xAI's application. The rejection is based on the 1970 Hague Convention on the Evidence of Criminal Evidence.

South Korea has declared, pursuant to Article 23 of the Convention, that requests for pretrial evidence in the form of blanket document requests will not be granted. Requests for evidence must specify the requested materials concretely and in detail. General formulations such as "all relevant documents" are not permissible.

The letter from the Director of International Affairs, Kim Eun Sil, clarifies that the application, in its current form, is too broad and therefore cannot be implemented.

No final end for xAI

The decision does not mean that Kakao is fundamentally prohibited from submitting documents. Rather, the South Korean government clarifies that a more precise and narrowly defined application could be reviewed again. xAI would therefore have the option of specifically requesting certain documents and resubmitting the application.

Apple and OpenAI: What's really behind Elon Musk's lawsuit

Why the Apple vs. xAI case is far from over

The rejection from South Korea is a significant setback for xAI in its legal battle against Apple. At the same time, the case illustrates how difficult it is to gather international evidence against a global corporation like Apple. While Apple defends its App Store rules, xAI continues to try to prove that these rules systematically disadvantage super apps and new AI offerings. The conflict is far from over; instead, it is increasingly shifting into the realm of legal intricacies. (Image: Shutterstock / Algi Febri Sugita)